Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club X (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 23:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club X[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced beyond one source (not enough SIGCOV), and searching for "Club X" on google easily confuses with many other clubs, one of which is also a draft I'm working on. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no SIGCOV found in a search as well. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in the last discussion by @Michig: such as [1], [2], [3], [4], so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 and 4 mention Club X more in passing. The Guardian doesn't focus solely on Club X but just mentions it as another cancelled show along with others, it's a maybe when it comes to notability. Only Source 1 could maybe establish notability, but that website is a dedicated dictionary of every British TV show that ever existed and doesn't establish Club X. Are there other sources which can establish the notability of the TV show? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG based on sources found. It's from 1989 so not as much will be available online, but I'm sure there was more back then. The Daily Telegraph, Apr 22, 1989., The Guardian, Apr 27, 1989., The Observer, Apr 23, 1989. 3 other sources listed in previous discussion if anyone has access to British newspaper archive, not sure if any are the same as these but those 3 should of been enough for GNG, they just need to make their way into article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources found on Newspapers.com demonstrate significant coverage exists. The Telegraph article is a significant find. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources available per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.